3.9 Article

Correlation of clinical outcome of integra application with microbiologic and pathological biopsies

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ta.0000195982.71400.84

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Integra, a dermal replacement template consisting of bovine collagen, chondroitin-6-sulfate, and a silastic sheet is a postexcisional treatment for deep partial to full thickness burns where autograft is limited. This study correlates Integra histology and quantitative microbiology cultures with clinical outcomes after autografting. Methods. Charts of 29 burn patients who underwent Integra treatment and neodermis biopsy at the time of ultra thin autografting were reviewed. We analyzed microbial contamination, inflammatory reaction, and autograft take. Results. The mean burn size and age were 43% total body surface area and 39 years old, respectively. In quantitative neadermis cultures, 90% of samples had bacterial growth; nine samples (31%) had > 10(5) colony forming units per gram. The most common organism was Staphylococcus aureus (31%). Patients with quantitative bacterial counts > 10(5) CFU/g received targeted systemic antibiotics. Integra take (83%) and autograft take (92%) were acceptable even in patients with high bacterial counts (78% Integra take; 86% autograft take). More than 50% of biopsies had dermal regeneration similar to normal dermis; foreign body reactions were unusual. Histologic evidence of inflammation, especially polymorphonuclear cells, was increased in biopsies with high bacterial counts. Conclusion. Integra and autograft take can be acceptable even with high bacterial counts if wounds are treated with appropriate targeted topical and systemic antibiotics in the presence of microbial contamination. Neodermis biopsies showed fibrous in-growth congruent with existing Integra fibers with minimal foreign body reaction. These data support Integra use as a safe and effective treatment modality in patients with major burns.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据